Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Cholo v Motlana (61773/2021) [2025] ZAGPPHC 322 (27 March 2025)
The High Court terminated co-ownership of a jointly held property after a relationship ended, ordering sale or buyout and equal division of proceeds.
Z.I v W.I and Another (13142/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 95 (9 March 2023)
High Court decision under the actio communi dividundo ordering joint co-owned property sold and the net proceeds divided equally after divorce.
Rousseau and Others v Government Employees Pension Fund and Others (2938/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 285 (21 October 2022)
The court held that the decision of the Government Pension Administration Agency to allocate pension benefits to the major children was vitiated by its failure to consider the deceased's 2010 nomination form. The Board was unaware of the nomination and did not take it into account, resulting in a decision made without all relevant information. While the Board has a wide discretion to allocate benefits among dependants and may override a member's wishes, such discretion must be exercised rationally and with due regard to all relevant factors, including valid nominations. The statutory definiti…
Source excerpt
Allner v Werner (2584/2018) [2020] ZAECGHC 12; [2020] 2 All SA 49 (ECG) (25 February 2020)
The High Court found a universal partnership between unmarried cohabitants and awarded the plaintiff a 30% share of the partnership assets.
Robert Bosch Retirement Benefit Fund v Kooverjie N.O. and Others (59231/2012) [2013] ZAGPPHC 455 (3 December 2013)
The court found that the Appeal Board erred in law by requiring consultation with former members as stakeholders, as the statutory definition of 'stakeholder' was amended after the relevant negotiations and should not be applied retrospectively. However, the court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate adequate consultation and negotiation with pensioners, as there was no evidence that trustees had a considered mandate from those they purported to represent. The absence of meaningful communication and information-sharing with pensioners meant that the requirements of sections 15B and 1…
Source excerpt
Matadin v Parma and Others (4638/2009) [2010] ZAKZPHC 18 (7 May 2010)
The applicant, as a co-owner, is entitled to insist on partition of the property under the actio communi dividundo. The first respondent's challenges to locus standi and prematurity are without merit, as the applicant does not act as executrix and the estate representative is in the same position as the other co-owners regarding the sale. The property cannot be physically divided, and sale is the only practical solution. The court finds no sufficient evidence to justify equitable adjustment for occupation or expenses, given the modest value of the property and lack of clarity on payments. The…
Source excerpt
Explore more
